1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Matt Moore: A Case for Starting Him

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by shouright, Sep 24, 2012.

  1. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    There's the easy and obvious rationale that to bench Tannehill now would be borderline disastrous and you need to be patient while he's learning, etc. Ultimately, that easy and obvious rationale is the reason shouright's question isn't even a question.

    However, I'm a little more interested in the question of whether we even had/have a better QB on roster at this moment, in the very games that Tannehill played. I don't think we did, or do. I don't think the record would be ANY different with Matt Moore in.

    Although I do think had they kept David Garrard and started him, there's a chance the Dolphins might be at 2-1.
     
    Bpk, CaribPhin, PhinsRDbest and 4 others like this.
  2. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    and we can't gloss over Moore's uncanny ability to fumble
     
    MAFishFan and ckparrothead like this.
  3. Eop05

    Eop05 Junior Member Club Member

    5,659
    5,268
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    NJ
    I think this is the most telling. You can attribute Moore's poor first game in 2011 against the Jets to it being his first start IIRC.

    But he followed that poor performance up with a 61.1 rating in week 17 against the Jets in Miami. 12 games of starts under his belt under that system, 4 years into his NFL career.

    It tells me 2 things:
    A) Even with the experience and better weapons, Moore probably didn't do better
    B) The Jets are a tough defense for inexperienced QBs.
     
    Bpk likes this.
  4. Flippered

    Flippered Sea-dwelling mammal

    26
    20
    0
    Sep 22, 2012
    Biscayne Bay
    Considering this thread is nothing but pure speculation I'll add my biased opinion. I'll agree that Matt Moore could have won the game for us, but only if Ryan Tannehill were starting at wide receiver.
     
    Bpk, Mexphin, CaribPhin and 3 others like this.
  5. DolfanTom

    DolfanTom Livin' and Dyin' w/ Ryan!

    3,169
    979
    0
    Apr 26, 2008
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    I'm sorry, this entire premise is absurd at this point. You play Tannehill and live through the ups and downs, the growing pains, w/ eyes toward success in future seasons. Note how mostly well the second-year guys this year are playing this year, and none of them have the talent of Luck, RGIII, or Tannehill. I think next year at this point, we're going to be thankful we got through T-hill's growing pains "last year."

    Sure, might we have won yesterday w/ Moore? Perhaps, but it's not about Moore - it's about getting Tannehill to his peak ASAP, and no better way to do that than to play him all the time. You don't think he learned something yesterday!
     
  6. Pandarilla

    Pandarilla Purist Emeritus

    14,282
    5,005
    113
    Sep 10, 2009
    Boone, NC
    That's my take as well. That incomplete bullet that was dropped on third and ten in the 4th qtr was on the money. We've got our QB, feckin' eagle eyes.

    Moore has savvy in the pocket and can release the ball when he gets pummeled. However, Tannehill offers you that and a whole lot more.

    Tannehill deserves to start and he's allowed to make mistakes this year. He's not on a leash, he's on a shock collar with Sun Life as his yard...

    End of story in my opinion.
     
  7. DolfanTom

    DolfanTom Livin' and Dyin' w/ Ryan!

    3,169
    979
    0
    Apr 26, 2008
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    I am more than fine w/ it! And I'm more than happy to look back at this time and laugh when I'm watching the Dolphins compete for division titles and conference championships year after year in a few years, w/ a fully grown Tannehill at the helm!
     
    Bpk and Pandarilla like this.
  8. Clipse

    Clipse mediocrity sucks

    7,975
    1,869
    113
    Sep 27, 2009
    Roanoke, Virginia
    This is dumb. If Tannehill sucks he sucks. Matt Moore is nothing more than mediocre and has a 0% chance of being the future. There is no point in replacing a rookie mediocre to bad QB for a seasoned mediocre to bad QB.
     
    Pandarilla likes this.
  9. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Often overlooked, but absolutely. Pocket presence and fumbling is something you always have to consider with Moore. Prior to this week Tannehill was 2nd only to Rodgers in accuracy while under pressure, according to PFF. Would that have been the same with Moore?
     
    Bpk likes this.
  10. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,648
    67,540
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    Lol, nobody wants to replace Ryan Tannehill for damn sake.

    Its just a question of if a better qb rating would of got an extra win in the jet game, and whether or not you think Moore could of played the position better yesterday for that one day, well, knowing Matt Moore I don't think it's out if the question to say the odds are slihtly better that he would of payed better than RTs performance for that one day..doesnt mean sh&$ though, still want RT to play aaaaallll season long baby..
     
  11. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    A) A better passer rating doesn't necessarily translate to the win, passer rating doesn't incorporate everything

    B) There's no objective basis (and I do mean none) for claiming Moore would've had a better passer rating to begin with

    C) When someone starts a thread posing "the case for" benching Ryan Tannehill and starting Matt Moore, then I don't think people are out of line to talk about it being nuts to bench Tannehill in order to start Moore. Call me crazy but that IS the subject of the thread.
     
    vt_dolfan likes this.
  12. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,628
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    You can't really blame the wide receivers for much. Both Brian Hartline and Davone Bess are on pace for +/- 1000 yard seasons.
     
    Pandarilla likes this.
  13. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    I blame Armstrong for dropping what may have been a TD
     
    DolfanTom likes this.
  14. Disgustipate

    Disgustipate Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    31,608
    55,628
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Yeah, but the idea that the wide receivers are totally insufficient for Tannehill to be successful isn't really all that well supported. The situation isn't ideal, but it isn't horrible.
     
    Pandarilla likes this.
  15. djphinfan

    djphinfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    111,648
    67,540
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    I understand what your saying, and your right, I just don't think that was really the case he was making..I think it was more based on that there's more talent on the team then people think, and what this team could do if you flipped the qb rating from last year to this year.
     
  16. HardKoreXXX

    HardKoreXXX Insensitive to the Touch

    20,459
    14,210
    113
    Apr 2, 2008
    Coral Springs, FL
    Volume doesn't = efficiency.
     
  17. Eop05

    Eop05 Junior Member Club Member

    5,659
    5,268
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    NJ
    You can blame the fact that those are the only two guys that get targets even with the amount of snaps where we have 3+ receivers on the field.

    Brian Hartline and Davonne Bess are good NFL receivers. But they shouldn't be so good that no one else is getting targeted. Brian Hartline had almost no development time with Ryan Tannehill, yet he's seen dozens more targets than Naanee and Armstrong.

    The most logical explanations can be that they're not trusted by the coaches, not good, or create no separation.
     
    PhinGeneral likes this.
  18. Eop05

    Eop05 Junior Member Club Member

    5,659
    5,268
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    NJ
    But what wasn't taken into account was Moore's 2011 pass rating against the Jets........which was a combined < 50, which was worse than Tannehill's rating yesterday.
     
    Pandarilla likes this.
  19. vt_dolfan

    vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    Wow.....I gotta disagree Shou...completely....if you want to just look at that one stat, fine, but...Tannehill played a very good game yesterday IMO .... besides the one pick. I thought there were plays made that Moore could only dream about.

    And...no..I dont want to win now...I want to keep moving like we are....Tannehill is clearly not overwhelmed. Two missed field goals cost us that game yesterday.....thats not on Tannehill
     
  20. jegol71

    jegol71 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,102
    200
    63
    Dec 7, 2007
    Has Moore taken any reps at defensive back?
     
  21. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Blaming the loss on one person is silly. There were a number of passes Tannehill left on the field that would have won the game for us. If he made one of those, we probably win. If Carpenter makes one FG, we probably win. If the secondary makes one extra play, we probably win.
     
  22. Eop05

    Eop05 Junior Member Club Member

    5,659
    5,268
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    NJ
    well there's a difference there

    If Carpenter makes the last FG, we DO win.
    All the other ones were probably
     
  23. Lt Dan

    Lt Dan Season Ticket Holder

    2,129
    1,214
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Eglin AFB, Fl
    no moore...end of story
     
  24. BigDogsHunt

    BigDogsHunt Enough talk...prove it!

    22,422
    9,819
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    DC Metro Area
    But, But, what about all this IMAGINARY stuff and fluff we can go over and over and over and over?????
     
  25. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    And that's a good argument for why yesterday's game might not have been different with Moore starting, but the point still remains that Tannehill isn't playing in a way in general that's conducive to winning, whereas the guy backing him up went 6-3 in his final nine games last year, with a QB rating of 97.

    It's gonna be awful hard to go out there and win games when your QB's rating is in the 50s, which is where Tannehill is on the season at this point. Moore stands to do much better in general IMO, despite the changes in the offense.

    It's hard to surmount a QB who is playing poorly and win games. Again, if you're willing to do that for his development, that's all well and good, but realize that the season is probably toast at this point.
     
  26. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    I'm not blaming the loss on Tannehill exclusively. What I'm saying is that right now, to win, this team has to play in a way that overcomes the play of its quarterback, and as strongly as quarterback play is related to winning, that's an awful tall task.
     
  27. HardKoreXXX

    HardKoreXXX Insensitive to the Touch

    20,459
    14,210
    113
    Apr 2, 2008
    Coral Springs, FL
    And vice versa.
     
  28. maynard

    maynard Who, whom?

    18,425
    6,346
    113
    Dec 5, 2007
    clearwater, fl
    Right, but it also all targets. Egnew as a seam buster has not materialized and we can only throw so much to the Backs without being able to threaten anything but the deep sideline
     
  29. shouright

    shouright Banned

    22,845
    8,861
    0
    Dec 13, 2007
    And that's true, if the ENTIRE rest of the team is playing poorly, which is improbable. There isn't any other area of the team that's as strongly related to winning as QB play.

    Now, you could argue that other areas of the team factor into QB rating, but it also happens to be the case that the QBs who are widely considered to be the best QBs in terms of their own ability are also the ones with the highest QB ratings, which suggests a lot of this comes down real simply to how that one guy plays.
     
  30. Eop05

    Eop05 Junior Member Club Member

    5,659
    5,268
    113
    Dec 8, 2007
    NJ
    If Moore's first 3 games were against the Eagles, Jets, and another team last year, his rating would've been similar.

    Let's let Tannehill play against some weaker defenses. It will start to even out his rating. I suspect he'll finish the season at around the high 70's.

    Houston looks to have a top 3 defense, while the Jets could be a top 5 defense as well.
     
  31. PhinGeneral

    PhinGeneral PC Texas A&M, Bro Club Member

    9,802
    7,239
    113
    Jan 4, 2008
    Swamps of Jersey
    In this case, I think the fact that they have 2 receivers on pace for 1k seasons is fool's gold. Having limited dependable options isn't going to help Tannehill develop or be useful in clutch situations. Having one more solid receiver could have meant the difference between missed 47, 48 yard field goals and more easily makeable 30, 35 yard ones.
     
    Mexphin and MrClean like this.
  32. PhinGeneral

    PhinGeneral PC Texas A&M, Bro Club Member

    9,802
    7,239
    113
    Jan 4, 2008
    Swamps of Jersey
    The issue I have with this is extrapolating one loss out of three into 5 losses for the season. For one, I think it's debatable that Moore would have led them to a victory yesterday to begin with. It also wouldn't seem to account for the probability that Tannehill improves as the season wears on. To me, worst case scenario is that starting Tannehill over Moore might cost them 1 or 2 games with this less-than-stellar cast.
     
  33. jsizzle

    jsizzle Banned

    2,935
    496
    0
    Jan 3, 2012
    Shou,

    Go back and look at the games Moore won, EVERY win was against a sub .500 team. Vs. the good teams he had 6 TOs in 3 losses. He is not good.
     
  34. BigDogsHunt

    BigDogsHunt Enough talk...prove it!

    22,422
    9,819
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    DC Metro Area
    It's not about being good or not....its all about the numbers.....those squiggly numbers.:lol:
     
  35. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    11,881
    4,834
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    No, you do not trade a handful of possible wins for the development of your rookie QB. Putting in Moore would be awful and short sighted, the kind of thing you would do if your job was potentially on the line, which I don't think Philbin's is. Moore is fool's gold at this point.
     
    Ducken likes this.
  36. RevRick

    RevRick Long Haired Leaping Gnome Club Member

    7,191
    3,940
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Thomasville, GA
    I don't know about that, Shou.... I watched a whole lot of Marino's best seasons wasted because of HORRID secondary play.
     
  37. WhiteIbanez

    WhiteIbanez Megamediocremaniacal

    2,155
    837
    0
    Aug 10, 2012
    Have you seen Moore in this offense? He is god awful.
    Sure he went 6-3 last season in a different system.
    We made our choice in Tannehill and you have to stick with it.
    Giving him the hook after three games is a miserable idea.
     
  38. Alex13

    Alex13 Tua Time !!! Club Member

    25,809
    39,060
    113
    Dec 21, 2007
    Berlin,Germany
    barring injury....moore is done in miami
     
  39. Lt Dan

    Lt Dan Season Ticket Holder

    2,129
    1,214
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    Eglin AFB, Fl
    simple...had Reggie not gone down yesterday...we win
     
  40. jw3102

    jw3102 season ticket holder

    7,760
    3,486
    113
    Sep 4, 2010
    Maui, Hawaii
    I have zero interest in seeing Matt Moore take over at QB for the Dolphins. Tannehill is suppose to be the future for this team and he needs to start every game this season to see if he is the answer at the QB position or not.

    This team isn't going to win more than 5 or 6 games this season, no matter who the QB is. I seriously doubt if Moore would even be on the team right now if Garrard had remained healthy during training camp. If Tannehill should happen to have to miss playing time this season. I would rather see what Delvin could do as the starter.
     

Share This Page